George Floyd's murder and racism

[RabbiKnife]

We all come from either Ham, Shem, or Japheth.  Pick your family tree.

Shem here.

I’m from the tribe of Curly…. Nuuk nyuck nyuck nyuck. Whooob whhoob whooob whoob

[Athanasius]

We all come from either Ham, Shem, or Japheth.  Pick your family tree.

Shem here.

Where would that place Europeans, with Ham?

[Oscar_Kipling]

hm, again not having followed the trial, did Chauvin not have a trial by jury?

Yes, and the jury's decision remains inexplicable to me. But other posters here are implying that it was necessary to prevent riots, which is not the purpose of a trial.

Okay, I had to reread some of your posts lets see:

"posters" are saying Chauvin was only charged with Unintentional second degree murder and third degree murder in order to avoid the appearance of leniency and/or riots and upheaval. Are you saying that the belief that the charges were as such in order to avoid the appearance of leniency or to avoid riots and or upheaval is wrong, or are you saying the former and that the belief is true?

"posters" are saying Chauvin was found guilty by a jury of his peers of Unintentional second degree murder and third degree murder because the Jury wanted to avoid the appearance of leniency and/or riots and upheaval. Are you saying that the belief that the jury found Chauvin guilty on those charges in order to avoid the appearance of leniency or to avoid riots and or upheaval is wrong, or are you saying the former and that the belief is true?

You are saying that the Jury finding Chauvin guilty of Unintentional second degree murder and third degree murder is inexplicable to you through mere preponderance of the evidence, but you are not asserting any reasons for why this is so...yes?

[Sojourner]

Suffice it to say, I'm not convinced that the possibility of civil unrest factored in when assessing the charges against Chauvin--especially given the BLM atmosphere and George Floyd being so central to it. (You yourself questioned whether the evidence was commensurate with the charges against him).

And this should worry us. Again, a trial is supposed to determine guilt by the weight of the evidence, not come to a politically expedient decision.

Like the current Trump trial. Nothing political about going after the GOP's front-runner, right? It's all about justice.

 I believe if Chauvin had been exonerated, the black community would have erupted in anger just as they did when the Rodney King cops got off light. And stacking the charges the way the prosecutors did, went a long way toward ensuring Chauvin did time--which is my whole point. With that I'm done beating this dead horse.

[Fenris]

Okay. So I feel like what you are saying and some other posters are saying are a few different things.

"posters" are saying Chauvin was only charged with Unintentional second degree murder and third degree murder

There is no such thing as " Unintentional second degree murder". There is murder 2, "intentional", and murder 2, "depraved indifference".

Are you saying that the belief that the charges were as such in order to avoid the appearance of leniency or to avoid riots and or upheaval is wrong

Yes. That's wrong. You charge the crime that was committed, not some other crime because outside circumstances warrant it. Additionally, the fact that the jury found guilt where it was not supported by the evidence is another injustice.

You are saying that the Jury finding Chauvin guilty of Unintentional second degree murder and third degree murder is inexplicable to you through mere preponderance of the evidence

"Preponderance of the evidence" only applies for a civil trial. In a criminal trial, the standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a higher level of proof.

but you are not asserting any reasons for why this is so

It's not my job to disprove things, it's the DA's office job to prove it. Should Chauvin have known that his actions had a good chance of causing a death? I'm an EMT and a retired cop, and it's not obvious to me.

[Fenris]

I’m from the tribe of Curly…. Nuuk nyuck nyuck nyuck. Whooob whhoob whooob whoob

"Curly" AKA Jerome Lester Horwitz was also from Shem.

[Fenris]

Where would that place Europeans, with Ham?

Yapeth.

Noah blesses his sons (Gen 9) (or has a the furthest reaching prophecy ever) and says "may Japheth live in the tents of Shem". It seems to me that he's describing western civ: the melding of Greek thought and Jewish values, creating the world's most productive cultural system.

[Fenris]

Like the current Trump trial. Nothing political about going after the GOP's front-runner, right?

No argument from me.

I believe if Chauvin had been exonerated, the black community would have erupted in anger just as they did when the Rodney King cops got off light.

But that's not the point of the criminal justice system. Besides, I didn't say that he committed no crime. Just not murder. If he was convicted for manslaughter it would be more legally reasonable.

[Oscar_Kipling]

There is no such thing as " Unintentional second degree murder". There is murder 2, "intentional", and murder 2, "depraved indifference".

Okay I think you should tell that to Minnesota state law, they've been doing it wrong. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

Yes. That's wrong. You charge the crime that was committed, not some other crime because outside circumstances warrant it. Additionally, the fact that the jury found guilt where it was not supported by the evidence is another injustice.

Well, seeing as how you didn't even know that Minnesota law has unintentional murder, i'd wonder if new information would change your position at all.

"Preponderance of the evidence" only applies for a civil trial. In a criminal trial, the standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a higher level of proof.

Well you got me there, well sort of,  I was talking about your preponderance of the evidence, as you've made a conclusion about what was explicable by the evidence and the charges you pondered...no?

It's not my job to disprove things, it's the DA's office job to prove it. Should Chauvin have known that his actions had a good chance of causing a death? I'm an EMT and a retired cop, and it's not obvious to me.

It's not your job, I didn't mean to imply that it was. Really I was just attempting to clarify whether or not you were actually asserting anything about why the jury came to the conclusion that they did or not. Were you a cop in Minnesota?

[Fenris]

Okay I think you should tell that to Minnesota state law, they've been doing it wrong. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

What they call "unintentional" is commonly known as "felony murder". There is intent, just not for the murder itself.

Well, seeing as how you didn't even know that Minnesota law has unintentional murder, i'd wonder if new information would change your position at all.

Nope, because there's no underlying felony.

Well you got me there, well sort of,  I was talking about your preponderance of the evidence, as you've made a conclusion about what was explicable by the evidence and the charges you pondered...no?

Nope, those words have specific meaning, and they don't apply to criminal law.

It's not your job, I didn't mean to imply that it was. Really I was just attempting to clarify whether or not you were actually asserting anything about why the jury came to the conclusion that they did or not. Were you a cop in Minnesota?

No, and it doesn't matter.

[Oscar_Kipling]

What they call "unintentional" is commonly known as "felony murder". There is intent, just not for the murder itself.

Uh huh, So what was he charged with exactly?

Nope, because there's no underlying felony.

Actually, the underlying felony was third-degree assault.

Nope, those words have specific meaning, and they don't apply to criminal law.

They have a specific meaning in the justice system, but not in a thread on an internet forum unless you want to suggest that that the way words are used in the justice system are the only way those words can be meaningfully used in any context....though it wouldn't surprise me if that is exactly what you did.

[Fenris]

Uh huh, So what was he charged with exactly?

Great question.

Actually, the underlying felony was third-degree assault.

Which requires "substantial bodily harm". Which was what?

They have a specific meaning in the justice system, but not in a thread on an internet forum unless you want to suggest blah blah blah

Oh for goodness sake. Give it a rest. You don't have to argue every single thing that I say.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Great question.

Not really, It's no big mystery, I found the charging documents in 5 seconds here:

Charge: Second Degree Murder - Unintentional - While Committing A Felony
Minnesota Statute: 609.19.2(1)
Maximum Sentence: Imprisonment of not more than 40 years.
Offense Level: Felony
Offense Date (on or about): 05/25/2020
Control #(ICR#): 20200338
Charge Description: That on or about May 25, 2020, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, Derek Michael
Chauvin, caused the death of a human being, George Floyd, without intent to effect the death of any
person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in
the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting, namely assault in the third degree.

https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/AmendedComplaint06032020.pdf

Which requires "substantial bodily harm". Which was what?

wait, what is this? are you asking me to justify the third degree assault charge or are you attempting to insinuate that that was not the basis felony for the unintentional second degree murder charge? if the first one, that's not my job, it's the DA's or if the second then see the charging document linked above.

Oh for goodness sake. Give it a rest. You don't have to argue every single thing that I say.

You're right, rest granted.

[Fenris]

Not really, It's no big mystery, I found the charging documents in 5 seconds here:

Awesome!

wait, what is this? are you asking me to justify the third degree assault charge

Weirdly, Chauvin isn't charged with assault 3. Which is unhelpful.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Having a little bit of experience in the field, I was very surprised that the murder charge stuck.

In order for it to have been murder, one of two things were required to be proved:

Either

1) There was intent to kill Floyd

or

2) Chauvin acted with "depraved indifference". That he knew his actions had a very good chance of causing Floyd's death.

And I don't see that either was met.

So i'd like to go back to this, which was appearently the basis for your opinion. It is clear that you didn't know that what Chauvin was charged with and you were not aware of the relevant minnesota statutes.

Awesome!

I guess, I'd call it doing the basic amount of work to inform my opinion, which you obviously did not do.

Weirdly, Chauvin isn't charged with assault 3. Which is unhelpful.

Is that weird? is it unusual at all or is it bog standard? What are you basing this weird characterization on, if its like your initial opinion i'd say it's based on your misguided belief that you know what you are talking about without doing the bare minimum verification work.

You have received new information and appearently instead of considering it, all you want to do is find a way to not admit that you formed an opinion without reviewing or even being aware of the basic facts of the case. You made no effort to check your assumptions and even though you are objectively wrong on essentially every point that you've asserted regarding this case you want to find some life line in the fact that third degree assault isn't a separate charge in the charging documents, I guess because you feel that it's weird apropos of nothing. Whether you admit it or not this puts the fact that you found the verdict inexplicable in a wholly different light, considering that you didn't even know what the charges were.